In 1992, as the World Bank prepared to release a report entitled Development and the Environment, there was a battle between groups of economists over a single chart that was resolved by not using the chart at all.   The original depicted the economy as a black box with one arrow pointing at it labeled “inputs” and another arrow pointing away from it labeled “outputs”.

A dissident group of World Bank economists wanted to surround that with another box labeled “Environment.”  Had they done that, the implications are obvious.  The economhy has limits.  If you hypothesize a continuously growing economy, eventually, it will fill then entire box and there will be nothing left.  So, perpetual growth is a myth.  

 

This raises many questions for us now.  Since this is economics, you can view the environment like an account of our natural economy.  You can continue to make withdrawals to support the human economy (the inputs) as long as something replenishes the natural economy.  How long we can exceed that is determined by the relative sizes of the boxes.  

This month we passed the day on which we used more planetary resources than can be replenished in a year.  We are now borrowing from our children and their children.  But no one celebrated this milestone and it was definitely NOT on the Nightly Business Report.

For California politics, we need to be asking how much growth can be expended here.  We continue to run the state on borrowed funds in the human economy and borrowed resources in the natural economy. We can not continue taking more than we can return.

It is possible to throttle our economic throughput to such a level as is sustainable, but that has major implication for employment.  If we reduce throughput how might we provide jobs and keep our standard of living?  Hard answers to come up with and no one is even asking the questions.  

Pavley Bill splits environmental community

by Brian Leubitz

Yes, I went with the Battelstar Galactica reference, but with the melee that is currently surrounding fracking legislation in the California legislature, battle is a good term. So, let’s start with the baseline: SB 4, Sen. Pavley’s legislation does not currenty include a moratorium on the environmentally questionable (!) practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

The next four weeks will determine how aggressively California regulates the controversial oil-drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing. And as state Sen. Fran Pavley points out, “four weeks is a long time, legislatively.”

The energy industry is watching these developments closely and with a degree of apprehension.

Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, has spent the summer engaged in negotiations with the governor’s office, energy industry and environmental groups. She’s the prime sponsor of SB 4, a bill that would tighten how California regulates hydraulic fracturing and how much public information drillers would have to provide about their activities. (Scott Detrow / KQED)

The debate over the moratorium has meant that there are environmentalists on both sides of the bill. However, in many ways it boils down to an issue of tactics, but I welcome any opinions that differ with me about this. Pavley’s bill is better than the status quo, but it doesn’t get the state to the total ban where it should be in the short term until it is totally clear that this process is safe. That data just isn’t there at this point, and with the data connecting fracking and earthquakes, safety seems to be in the background for the frackers.

So if SB 4 passes, and puts a few limits and regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the big question is whether there will be momentum for another major piece of legislation in the future. It is the ongoing legislative conundrum of wait for the perfect or take what you can get. Clean Water Action supports the measure (PDF), but Credo, MoveOn and other groups are looking to kill the bill unless it includes a moratorium. In related news, the California Democratic Party are on the record as supporting a moratorium. However, the party hasn’t specifically said anything about the current debate.

The bill will likely move forward within the next few weeks, but CREDO and others are calling for the bill to be shelved if there is no moratorium. We’ll know pretty soon which way this fight will go.

UPDATE: Lauren Steiner has an excellent post at CommonDreams about why SB 4 is worse than no regulation at all. Here is an emotionally powerful quote on her reasoning:

Instead, the flawed bill sets up a process for notification, disclosure, monitoring and permitting and simply calls for future regulations by other agencies and a scientific study.

Telling someone when you’re going to frack, where you’re going to frack and what chemicals you will use, is like a murderer telling you he’s going to shoot you on your front porch at noon tomorrow using an AK-47.

At the end of the day, you’re still dead.

Read the full post for a more full perspective from the perspective of environmentalists seeking to block SB 4.

Das Williams and other coastal legislators call for federal protection of sensitive ecosystems

by Brian Leubitz

The Assembly is back in session, but sometimes the important part of the job isn’t actually legislation. In a letter to the EPA and Dept. of Interior, several legislators are calling for more regulation on offshore fracking:

Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) wrote the letter signed by seven other state legislators and sent to the the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The lawmakers call for federal officials to consider new regulations for fracking under the seabed.

“Hydraulic fracturing poses great potential dangers to our sea life and all California residents,” Williams said. “This controversial well-stimulation technique needs greater scrutiny, particularly when it potentially jeopardizes our coastal way of life.” (LAT)

The letter was also signed by Sens. Pavley, Evans, and Jackson, and Asms. Stone, Levine, Bloom, Nazarian and Wieckowski.

Now, this isn’t the same thing as doing the important work of actually getting some solid legislation on fracking passed. That needs to happen ASAP, and while Sen. Pavley and other have had a bit of a rocky time of that, it is still yet possible to happen before the next election.

Ad parodied TransCanada CEO

by Brian Leubitz

With President Obama’s time running out for a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action group wanted to put some pressure on by advertising on the Tonight Show during the Presidential appearance. However, just before the show (and the ad) were to air, the DC NBC affiliate let the group know that they were not going to air the ad:

NBC has rejected an ad opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, despite running ads in favor of its construction. The climate group NextGen Climate Action says it was notified at the last minute Tuesday night that a Washington, D.C. NBC station rejected its ad, submitted for President Obama’s appearance on the Tonight Show. …

“After a careful review, it was determined that this ad violates our guidelines. We have communicated that to the advertiser,” a WRC spokesperson said.

According to NBC’s advertising guidelines, anything that appears to be “an attack of a personal nature, a direct attack on an individual business or a comment on a private dispute” can be considered unacceptable content.  Meanwhile, NBC has aired its share of pro-Keystone XL ads. Just this Sunday, a TransCanada-sponsored ad ran during Meet The Press that claimed tar sands oil is “cleaner” and would have “little impact” on climate change. (ThinkProgress)

Of course, TransCanada is claiming that the statements were all lies, but the facts remain to back up the claims. Any American jobs from KXL will be short-lived temporary gains, but the big winners will be the oil companies who will be able to feed the growing Chinese appetite for fossil fuels. Given that the shale oil set to be pumped down from Canada is dirtier, the additional hit to the climate would be staggering.

In the end, neither the science nor the economics of the KXL project are in the best interests of the American people, and so the proponents of the project are working to silence critics at every turn. The decision is now in the President’s lap, and we need to pressure him. NextGen Climate Action Tom Steyer, who incidentally seems to have some of his own political ambition and certainly has his own interests in stopping KXL, have been been doing just that. Time is running out to kill this thing, so perhaps the NBC station did them a favor with the free publicity.

Making more than is necessary from a “bridge fuel”?

by Brian Leubitz

You may recall from this post a few months back that the Obama Administration is currently considering oil-company backed proposals to allow unlimited exports of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). So far the US Department of Energy has approved two proposed projects to export LNG, and more than a dozen are pending approval.

Yet questions continue to be raised about the impacts that allowing for unlimited LNG exports would have on our economy and environment. And all this is putting aside the very real dangers of fracking to get at the natural gas: earthquakes, tainted water, etc.

First of all, consider that the impacts of climate change are already arrived. In 2011-12, 25 climate-related extreme weather events caused a minimum of $1 billion in damages each. Luckily, U.S. carbon pollution is at its lowest point since 1994 but the U.S. EIA predicts that U.S. carbon pollution will began to rise by the end of the decade. Part of this drop has come from the modern fuel economy standards reducing emissions. Another factor has been the boom in LNG, allowing electricity generation to move away from coal and other fossil fuels.

The LNG boom has a large role to play in reducing carbon emissions because it burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels. In the short term it can be used to replace coal in electricity production. Natural-gas vehicles are increasingly being used in both public and private fleets as a cleaner, and less expensive, alternative to traditional vehicles. LNG is a veritable bridge to a clean energy future and can replace coal while we develop, transition to, and implement zero-carbon electricity systems.

But LNG can only be a bridge to the future, not the future itself. A recent report by the Center for American Progress(PDF) found that the use of natural gas must peak no later than 2030 if the U.S. is to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

Beyond the near term, however, there needs to be a swift transition from natural gas to zero-carbon energy, particularly in the generation of electricity. … Heavy investment in natural-gas generation capacity could crowd out investments in long-term solutions such as wind, solar, wave, and other renewable electricity sources. A rapid shift from natural gas to zero-carbon energy is therefore critical. Our analysis finds that the use of natural gas must peak no later than 17 years from now, in 2030-which is sooner than many policymakers currently realize is necessary-if the United States is to meet its climate goals and avoid the worst impacts of global warming.(Center for American Progress (PDF))

The transition from LNG to zero carbon energy must be rapid. While LNG combustion emits less carbon than coal, it still produces carbon emissions. Extended reliance on natural gas would make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet climate stabilization targets. Failure to do so risks increased frequency and severity of extreme weather, further hurting middle- and lower-income Americans. If the damages of the previous 25 extreme weather events were any indicator, the cost of disaster relief would outweigh short-term economic benefits.

Natural gas must remain only a bridge, and any expansion in LNG production to meet increased demands must be followed by, and not replace, increased investment in zero-carbon energy sources like wind, solar, and wave energy. Expansion also needs to be done such that it is sustainable from an environmental standpoint; we cannot overproduce and overstretch our natural gas infrastructure. The U.S. currently produces as much natural gas as it consumes. Any expansion of LNG projects should follow this and only produce as much natural gas as is necessary to meet the increased demand that will come from moving away from coal and other fossil fuels towards a zero-carbon energy future.

UPDATE: It turns out that as I was writing this, I missed the Obama administration approving a new LNG terminal in Louisiana.  If we are to avoid a glut of terminals here, we have to make our stand at the state level.

The California state Assembly will shortly take up a bill authored by California’s biggest climate hawk, Fran Pavley, to regulate fracking. Her SB4 bill promises to impose a comprehensive regulatory scheme instead of the current utter lack of regulations and instead of the weak regulations proposed by the state’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Regulations. It will cover not only fracking, the process of fracturing and pulverizing rock to get at its precious fossil fuels, but acidization, the process of dissolving rock in hydrochloric acid or worse to get at the same fossil fuels. The bill will study induced seismicity and require groundwater monitoring. It’s backed by an impressive array of green groups including California League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council. SB4 has already passed the state Senate and an Assembly committee, so it’s close to becoming law.

I share Senator Pavley’s concern for the climate. I volunteered for her in a close election last fall; I walked for her, I phone-banked for her, I helped raise thousands of dollars for her, I live-tweeted debates, and I helped other bloggers write about her. She gave me a social media shout-out at a volunteer thank you lunch last year. I’m proud to call her my State Senator.

Unlike other states where the frackers brag about extracting the allegedly “cleaner,” “bridge fuel” natural gas, California will be fracked for oil. The Monterey Shale, running from Monterey to Los Angeles under the richest farmland in the country, contains 400 billion barrels of oil. And it’s particularly carbon-intensive, sour, heavy crude – the California Air Resources Board ranks (PDF) some California oil as the dirtiest in the world, even above the filthy Canadian tarsands. Fracking and other unconventional extraction techniques could release about 15.5 billion barrels of that oil – about 2/3 of the United States’ reserves. I’ve previously calculated that California’s fracked up oil is as bad as Keystone XL for the climate.

I helped get a resolution calling for a moratorium on fracking through the California Democratic Party in April. Alas, bills calling for a moratorium couldn’t pass the California Assembly in May. At the same time, the political landscape has drastically shifted since 2012, when very weak regulatory bills couldn’t even make it out of committees. A June 2013 poll shows that 70% of Californians want fracking either banned or heavily regulated.

SB4 may pass the Assembly and be signed by Governor Brown. At that point, it’s likely that the California legislature will consider fracking “safely regulated,” check it off the to-do list, and get back to its main job of repairing years of damage caused by Republican budget cuts. There will be no appetite for tougher laws, just as there is no hope for single-payer legislation in the post-Obamacare national landscape. And the bill will act as a green light to major players currently claiming “regulatory uncertainty” as a reason not to dive headlong into fracking up the Golden State.

On the other hand, if SB4 fails in the Assembly, a fracking moratorium bill will emerge next year, and the clamor to do something will increase.

SB4 is California’s equivalent of a Nebraska bill changing the route of the Keystone XL pipeline, but not stopping or even slowing down our headlong rush to burn all the oil.

And what happens if we do burn all the oil? James Hansen’s latest paper provides a dense, depressing answer: burning all the Earth’s fossil fuels would raise the temperature of the Earth an average of 25 degrees C, making most of the planet uninhabitable.

SB4 presents a choice for California Democrats. Do they regulate the trade secrets and what happens to the produced water and whether the neighbors know what’s going on? Or do they say no to a carbon-intensive project that would undo all of the state’s progress on clean energy?

Nothing makes me appreciate electricity more than conferences and airports. I walk around the perimeters, eyes fixed to the ground (and my dwindling phone screen), looking for that unoccupied little power outlet of opportunity that will allow me to stay connected all day (maybe? We can only hope).

Listening to naysayers talk about trumped-up “problems” with solar energy, one would think that we’re going to be stuck with the same antiquated, centralized electricity system for ages. But that’s just not the case, particularly because of solar. In fact, we all have the opportunity to procure our own solar power strips, so to speak. Distributed rooftop solar can now be accessed by Californians of all walks of life through programs that take care of the initial installation costs, leaving users to enjoy the long term advantages. In fact, according to a July 2012 California Solar Initiative report, two-thirds of home solar installations now occur in low and median income neighborhoods.

Unfortunately for us, monopoly utilities have gotten themselves a sweet deal that guarantees healthy profits at the expense of ratepayer’s wallets and health, so you can imagine they’re not about to give it up without a fight. And fight they have, doing their best to hinder and obstruct a new energy source because it cuts into the profits they make out of building, maintaining (well, how much of this goes on is clearly debatable) and running their large-scale infrastructure. Their latest efforts are focused on eliminating net energy metering, a successful policy in 43 states that gives solar customers fair credit for the energy they put back on the grid.  

I asked Refugio Mata – a long time community organizer in East Los Angeles and the spokesperson for My Generation (Sierra Club’s clean energy campaign in California) www.sierraclub.org/mygeneration about this:  “Instead of trying to inhibit or kill the growth of rooftop solar in California, utilities should be doing everything they can to enable Californians from all walks of life to be part of the clean energy solution. When we install solar panels on our roofs, we are creating good, local jobs. Solar panels help make the transition from dirty to clean energy possible. By replacing fossil fuel energy with rooftop solar panels we also help to clean up the air we breathe and protect the health of California’s most vulnerable communities”

Speaking of protecting the health of Californians, that’s exactly what a new organization called Californians Against Utilities Stopping Solar Energy (CAUSE) has set out to do.  CAUSE is co-chaired by California physicians like Dr. Luis Pacheco, Medical Director of the Transitional Care Unit at California Hospital Medical Center and Dr. Deonza Thymes, board certified Emergency Medicine physician and CEO and founder of Healthfly Inc. The group believes rooftop solar should remain a core part of California communities and our economy, and that it should not be stifled to protect utility profits.  

We need to consider and evaluate the full value of all energy sources available and encourage consumers to make their own choices without any high-handed, political, backroom deals tilting the balance against a choice that is clearly rising in popularity. For example, a recent study by Crossborder Energy on the value of net energy metering shows that it will deliver more than $92 million per year to all California ratepayers and the grid.  It’s good for our health, and a financial benefit.  Condescending attitudes from utilities, masked as concern, will do nothing to help the communities that fossil fuel providers claim to worry about. Clean air, well-paid local jobs and cost-efficient rooftop solar energy can go much further in this regard.  

New documents reveal that, contrary to its public statements, the state’s top toxics regulator knew about lead and arsenic emissions at Exide Technologies for years but looked the other way, Consumer Watchdog said today.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) suspended Exide’s operations on April 24 and is now negotiating with the company on how to resume operations in heavily industrial Vernon where roughly one hundred residents live, but some 45,000 factory workers go every day.

“This serial toxic polluter should be shut down permanently and required to pay to clean up their mess,” said consumer advocate Liza Tucker.  “The fact that the DTSC did not protect the public when people were in harm’s way is inexcusable.”

On the day of Exide’s suspension, DTSC Director Debbie Raphael told reporters that there was no reason to believe that hazardous releases were going into the LA River or drinking water. She said the DTSC suspended Exide’s operations after recently learning of dangerous arsenic emissions to the air and of leaky pipes releasing hazardous waste into the soil.

In fact, the DTSC knew of the emissions for years. Exide Technologies confirms this in a filing before the department contesting the shutdown and calling for a court hearing. “The DTSC has known of the issues raised in the Order and Accusation for an extended period of time, and has consented to Exide’s continued operation,” wrote the Los Angeles firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.

And the department could not draw conclusions about the drinking water as DTSC regulators say that Exide was never compelled to dig monitoring wells deeply enough to ascertain if contamination had reached water as deep as public drinking wells.

Documents obtained by Consumer Watchdog show that the DTSC knew that the lead battery recycler’s operations endangered the public, that lead and arsenic emissions were going into the air and accumulating at hazardous levels on the ground, and were washing away into the surrounding watershed. Lead exposure can cause learning disabilities and high blood pressure. Arsenic exposure can cause heart disease, strokes, and cancer.

A study prepared by e2 Environmental for Exide at the request of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and shared with DTSC officials in 2007 said modeling of the dispersion of heavy metals from the site “suggest that in the last three years, Exide has contributed through deposition approximately 424 lbs. of lead in both 2004 and 2005 and 712 lbs of lead in 2006 to the watershed.”

A letter sent earlier this month to DTSC Director Debbie Raphael from DTSC Senior Hazardous Substances Engineering Geologist Philip Chandler makes clear that top staff resisted internal recommendations to do what was necessary to ensure long-term safety at the plant. The letter says:

• DTSC “has conveniently ignored for years” lead, arsenic and other heavy metal emissions that were permitted by air regulators but accumulated to hazardous waste levels on the ground.
• Exide’s own arsenic emissions source tests in 2010 and 2012, showed a significant spike in emissions over tests in 2006 and 2008. “DTSC had the ability to evaluate the change in emissions risk years before it issued this order” suspending the plant’s operations.
• Between 1999-2000, DTSC found lead at levels of 40 percent in the sediment at the bottom of the storm water retention pond and required Exide to clean it up. DTSC “was clearly aware” that the storm water drain lines were bringing lead particulates to the pond and that the lines were reportedly “perforated” so that they could leak into the soil on purpose.

The Exide facility emitted hazardous waste for years under a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This waste had a history of depositing and accumulating on the ground and roofs around the site.

In 2002, the DTSC issued an order requiring Exide to take measures to characterize the contamination and clean up 76 different waste units.  In 2003, the DTSC fined Exide $40,000 for improper storage of used lead-acid batteries, but delayed payment because of Exide’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

The DTSC took emergency measures in 2004 and again in 2008 to force Exide to clean up a lead-contaminated drainage channel, and public areas like sidewalks, streets, and neighboring roofs. In between, in 2006, the DTSC fined the company $25,000 in 2006 for failing to minimize the possibility of hazardous releases. “DTSC and air regulators failed miserably in coordinating to prevent continuous accumulation of hazardous waste on the ground,” Tucker said.

Though DTSC regulators in Southern California pushed the company to investigate and clean up, higher ups deferred taking corrective action in favor of issuing a final permit to the company that never materialized. “While lead and arsenic were piling up, soaking into the groundwater, and also flowing into the Los Angeles River, Exide and its negligent operations were falling through the regulatory cracks,” said Tucker. “And top DTSC managers refused to force the company, which is a polluter on a national scale, into compliance.”

For more on the DTSC and toxic pollution around the state, see: http://www.consumerwatchdog.or…

Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown announced his “May Revise” for the budget. The proponents of the California Modernization and Economic Development Act – a proposed oil extraction tax for the 2014 ballot – offered the following statement in response to his press conference:

“Though we are pleased with the potential funds for K-12 schools and community colleges, the surplus in Governor Brown’s revise of the budget, like the passage of Proposition 30 last November, is only one step in the process of providing adequate funding for K-12 and higher education. An oil extraction tax is absolutely necessary to continue this trend and promote job growth in California.

“UC and CSU enrollment rates have dropped 20% because of recent tuition hikes. This can not continue. By the year 2020 as a result of decreased access to education, the Public Policy Institute of California predicts our state will not be capable of meeting economic demand for highly educated workers. This will only make it more difficult for businesses to find qualified employees, and will perpetuate high unemployment and wage stagnation in California.

“We have great respect for the Governor and especially for his work passing Proposition 30, which was a big step forward for California’s students and our economy. However, we could not disagree more about the urgent need to pass an oil extraction tax in our state and provide critical funding for schools, colleges and universities. Prop 30 should not be an excuse to continue giving away oil and gas that’s extracted from California and sold around the world – especially when making college more accessible has never been so important. Inadequate funding for higher education in California is still a very real problem with long term economic consequences, and a tax on extraction in California would be unnoticeable to commuters and taxpayers: it would only require oil companies to pay their fair share.

“Sacramento can practice real fiscal responsibility by using revenue from energy that belongs to California to boost our economy and create jobs at a time when 9.8% of Californians can’t find work – and subsequently, don’t pay taxes. That’s why CMED uses a consumer-friendly oil tax to make crucial investments in higher education, cities and towns and support for small businesses to switch to less-costly, cleaner forms of energy.”

More information and updates from the campaign can be found at http://www.cmedact.org

Pipeline would encourage natural gas fracking in the state

by Brian Leubitz

The Obama Administration will likely decide on an oil-company backed proposal that would allow unlimited exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) within a few weeks. Big Oil and others whose bottom lines stand to grow from the policy are seeking to muddy the issue. But it really is simple: the results of expanding exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) could have some dramatic impacts on our economy and environment. And with the California GOP possibly looking to use their pro-fracking stance as an electoral issue, these are very relevant questions.

Natural gas prices in the United States have dropped by two-thirds since 2008. It has helped the expansion of U.S. manufacturing and our economic recovery by lowering energy costs for businesses, households and governments. A CNN editorial last year called the drop in prices “one of the most important developments for the U.S. economy in the last 60 years.” Cheaper natural gas gets us one step closer to energy independence, but at a very real cost.

But studies have shown that exporting LNG could increase the price of gas domestically by as much as 300 percent, savagely curtailing our ability to climb out of the recession and to build a competitive 21st century economy. Why is the DOE considering a policy, which would harm American citizens and American industry for the sake of increasing the overseas profits for a few giant oil and gas companies?

While a positive tool for the U.S. economy, workers, and consumers, there are negative environmental and health consequences associated with the methods used to drill for natural gas: hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Fracking has been shown to contaminate air and groundwater, lead to local water shortages, and impact human health, ecosystems, and the global climate.  

Acting on the behalf of oil and gas drilling lobbyists, Congress has excluded fracking from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Clean Water Act, three of America’s vital health and environmental protections. With federal regulation failing to provide adequate public protection, we should do everything in our power to prevent additional market demand for fracking – and expanded unlimited exports would create precisely that demand.

Expanding LNG exportation would translate to Big Oil and gas companies raking in profits overseas (while simultaneously fueling our economic competitors), and Americans here at home suffering increased rates of cancer, child asthma, and respiratory conditions as a result.

Natural gas is currently a cleaner and more socially and economically beneficial energy source than oil or coal.  But, given the environmental and health ramifications, it is best if thought of as a short-term resource for the United States. The best way to take advantage of this resource while still protecting our citizens’ health and our environmental heritage is by limiting natural gas demand to the current U.S. consumption, without expanding sales overseas. In the longer term, natural gas is going to be a less and less attractive option, for environmental, health, and economic reasons. We should not expand our reliance on it.

Oil and gas companies are currently pressing to expand U.S. exports of LNG to other countries, where the price is much higher and therefore, so are the associated profits. While this would increase the profits of these energy companies, it would increase prices for Americans in the short term and encourage more fracking and an economy further based on fossil fuels in the long term.

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Clean Water Action, and a host of other major environmental groups have sent a letter to President Obama urging him to oppose expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports until the government conducts additional environmental and economic studies. “Exporting even a fraction of the gas proposed could seriously harm American communities and the environment,” the groups wrote.

Allowing increased natural gas exports would be the worst of both worlds for the United States: we would throw away our current economic advantages and hurt American families in the short term, and damage our communities, health, and planet in the long term.

By sending our gas overseas we’ll be poisoning our land, water, and communities, all for the profit of big oil and gas companies. Not only will we harm communities and families here and now, but we’ll be crippling ourselves for the future. We need to ensure that the DOE understands the consequences of granting any further export permits.